DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
2 NAVY ANNEX
WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100
BUG
Docket No: 8545-10
20 April 2011
This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 20 April 2011. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of
this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board
consisted of your application, together with all material
submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board
considered the advisory opinions from Headquarters Marine Corps
(HOMC), dated 20 September 2010 and 1 April 2011, copies of
which are attached. The Board also considered your rebuttal
letters dated 18 November 2010 with enclosure and 13 April
2011 .
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. The Board found, as stated in the advisory
opinion dated 1 April 2011, that your current status as
temporarily retired makes you ineligible for consideration by
an Enlisted Remedial Selection Board, but noted that at such
time as you are found fit for duty and restored to active duty,
you may submit your request for remedial consideration for
promotion to HQMC (MMPR-2). Such a request should include
information about your stroke in May 2008 to explain why you
did not take action, before the Fiscal Year 2009 Gunnery
Sergeant Selection Board convened on 14 April 2009, to obtain
your fitness report for 1 January to 31 December 2008. In the
event you are permanently retired, you may request that your
case before this Board be reopened. In view of the above, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to
have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
ant material evidence or other matter not previously considered
by the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind
that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an
official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to
demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
jinjustice. j
Sincerely,
yo.
W. DEAN PYE F
Executive Dire&tpr
Enclosures
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09826-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket: 09826-10 19 April 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records Tos Secretary of the Navy Subj: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. Petitioner was selected for advancement at the next selection board. Whether Petitioner would have been selected by the FY-2010 selection board if it would have had the fitness report can never be known for certain.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09045-10
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 BAN Docket: 9045-10 28 Mar 2011 From: Chairman, Board for Correction of Naval Records TOR Secretary of the Navy Subj}: REVIEW OF NAVAL RECORD Ref: (a) Title 10 U.S.C. 1552 Encl: (1) DD Form 149 w/attachments (2) Navy Personnel Command (NPC) memo 1430 PERS 843 of 2 Nov 10 G3) Meno fr) SC
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 11168-10
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, the Board's file on your prior case (docket number 4974-10), your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. However, the Board particularly noted the figures provided in paragraph 3 of the advisory opinion, as well as the uncontested derogatory service record page 11 entries dated 14 November 1993 and 21 March, 24 March and 15 November...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00093-10
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has directed removing both contested fitness reports. A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 4 March 2010. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 00446-10
You finally impliedly requested removing the service record page 11 (“Administrative Remarks (1070)") counseling entry dated 25 January 2008. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Further, the (enclosure Board was unable to find your promotion would not have been delayed, had the results of the inspection, which was conducted on...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 01981-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 April 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying fora correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 03625-10
Your request for investigation of the reporting Senior's actions was not considered, as the Board for Correction of Naval Records is not an investigative body. A three-member panel of the Board, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 22 April 2010. The Board also considered the NPC e-mail dated 3 September 2009 with attachment (DD Form 214), a copy of which is attached, and your letters dated 20 August 2009 with enclosures, 30 October 2009 and 2 February 2010.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 08604-08
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your , application on 14 May 2009. The Board found it unobjectionable that the report ending 28 December 2007 referred to your less favorable promotion recommendation in the immediately preceding report from the same reporting senior, whose removal the Board did not find warranted, Since the Board found no material defect in your performance record, it had no grounds to grant you...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 10175-08
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Regarding the recommendation, in paragraphs 4.b.ii and 5 of the JAM5 advisory opinion, to amend the commanding officer’s/RO’s letter of 4 May 2006 (among the ericlosures to the HQMC routing sheet dated 10 October 2006) by removing the words “for his civilian conviction,” the Board noted that...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 05700-11
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 6 October 2011. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...